The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. ST47 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kaitlin Bennett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article does not have widespread coverage outside one event. The event was not that important, and appears to fail WP:BLP1E. No sources appear to exist to establish WP:GNG. Some of the sources are articles that she wrote. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Awaful does not equal not notable. She has been written about over an extended period of time. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Eastmain, I never said "awful", I said BLP1E and a lack of significant coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While she definitely came onto the scene because of the initial event. Coverage has followed her since that event. I do agree with Muboshgu that it's pretty poorly sourced but a further search brought up enough sources from different events over the past year, including the New York Post, Yahoo, The Cincinnati Enquirer, and Newsweek. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep clearly meets the GNG as per Newsweek, NY Times, Cincinnati Enquirer, Salon. She has multiple sources about several topics over an extended period of time so keep!Ndołkah (talk) 00:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - As far as I can tell, she has ben covered in a scant few news articles because of the AR-10 stunt, and then she sought more attention by performing a couple of other stunts like drinking milk and trying to ambush Chasten Buttigieg by asking a bizarre question. The article is classic WP:BIO1E. There is no evidence that her attention seeking will have any lasting effect, and there doesn't seem to anything else of biographical value available around which to write a proper biography.- MrX 🖋 02:18, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A simple google news search shows coverage is not scant!Ndołkah (talk) 03:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unfortunately. I may disagree with Mrs. Bennett's politics, and her personal stunts, but (contrary to popular belief) Wikipedia is not a venue for the airing of such grievances. She easily meets GNG and will likely continue to do so, given her affiliation with the inflammatory Infowars and penchant for media-savvy political stunts. We have to be fair and equal. --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 21:36, 18 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.